controlled demolition and no plane hit the Pentagon. If you show facts which do not support it on this board, you are ignored and or called names, or in other ways intimidated. The same people call themselves truthers. It is not my label. They claim it.
So yes, there is a consistent belief, evidenced by the people on this board who call themselves "truthers". They clearly demand faith in CD and no plane hit the Pentagon.
I don't know why you mention NIST. I don't work off their theories. I simply look at what evidence is readily available, and let it speak with no preconceived notion.
Another characteristic of the truth movement is adherence to the information put out by AE911Truth. I see people here regurgitate his talking points repeatedly, and they cannot defend them. Thus the name calling I suppose. As an example, Gage claims 7 came straight down into it's own footprint, and it just had small office fires. Neither are true, and it is highly irregular for a professional to utilize deceptive tactics.
I have shown repeatedly that the fires were extensive, in some areas and at some times during the day they were very intense, that the damage from 1WTC was likely even greater than NIST describes, that FDNY, from several sources, predicted 7 would fall, that saying the whole building fell in 7 seconds is a lie, and that the initial move of the shell was a rotating move, which is observable by it's noted shift to the east. This means lower support was not severed, rather, it buckled, or folded. If lower support were severed, the first move would have been straight down, and at immediate gravitational acceleration.
I present these facts and am voted down and called all sorts of names, but no one discusses them.
So, tell me what your idea is of 7, so I'll have a better idea of what evidence you would like to see. I am not claiming I have all the answers on 7. My study is not complete, and evidence is not as easy to find as for the Towers. The evidence I have though, shows no sign of CD, but it does show signs of structural failure.

Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site immediately. For more, read the Full Disclaimer